Immanuel Kant describes enlightenment as "man's release from his self-incurred tutelage, **What is Enlightenment?**Kant focuses primarily on the role of religion in limiting the free thoughts of individuals. He describes efforts to cut off some issues from debate as a crime against future generations who he believes should be able to discuss ideas freely.
Kant does not say that this freedom of thought and expression extends indefinitely. Kant makes a distiction between private and public expression. According to Kant, public expression is the type of free discussion that he supports, similar to a speech or a lecture that is presented to the public. Private expression, however, should not be free according to Kant. This type of expression is that of someone who has to fulfill an official duty. Chiefly, it means government officials and those assigned or elected to a public post. However, Kant also includes in this categories citizens, as they have certain duties that are expected of them within a societyWhat is Enlightenment. It also includes those prescribed a specific duty, such as a preacher in a church. In this situation, the preach is meant to serve the people, so his abilities to speak freely are limited.
Kant portrays history as being progressive. Societies can move forwards and backwards in a scale of freedom and knowledge as time passes. This is an idea later adopted by Mill. Though it is not made clear in What is Enlightenment? Kant believes that increasing freedom will positively develop society over time. This calls into question whether or not mankind is better of today than in the past. If this is true then will every future generation in a free world be better off than the past. This would imply that eventually there will be an end to history. Otherwise, Kant’s enlightenment will lead to a perpetual rejection of traditions by every generation, and arguably no progress.
Study Questions
How does Kant's defense of free speech compare to Mill's? Are their defenses similar?
Is the kind of "enlightenment" that Kant describes possible?
>
* Is it more important to understand Kant's definition of enlightenment or would Kant want us to focus on the process of becoming more enlightened?
>
How does one determine both the distinctions and connections between public and provate reasons?
What is Enlightenment?
Immanuel Kant describes enlightenment as "man's release from his self-incurred tutelage, **What is Enlightenment?**Kant focuses primarily on the role of religion in limiting the free thoughts of individuals. He describes efforts to cut off some issues from debate as a crime against future generations who he believes should be able to discuss ideas freely.
Kant does not say that this freedom of thought and expression extends indefinitely. Kant makes a distiction between private and public expression. According to Kant, public expression is the type of free discussion that he supports, similar to a speech or a lecture that is presented to the public. Private expression, however, should not be free according to Kant. This type of expression is that of someone who has to fulfill an official duty. Chiefly, it means government officials and those assigned or elected to a public post. However, Kant also includes in this categories citizens, as they have certain duties that are expected of them within a societyWhat is Enlightenment. It also includes those prescribed a specific duty, such as a preacher in a church. In this situation, the preach is meant to serve the people, so his abilities to speak freely are limited.
Kant portrays history as being progressive. Societies can move forwards and backwards in a scale of freedom and knowledge as time passes. This is an idea later adopted by Mill. Though it is not made clear in What is Enlightenment? Kant believes that increasing freedom will positively develop society over time. This calls into question whether or not mankind is better of today than in the past. If this is true then will every future generation in a free world be better off than the past. This would imply that eventually there will be an end to history. Otherwise, Kant’s enlightenment will lead to a perpetual rejection of traditions by every generation, and arguably no progress.
Study Questions
- How does Kant's defense of free speech compare to Mill's? Are their defenses similar?
- Is the kind of "enlightenment" that Kant describes possible?
>* Is it more important to understand Kant's definition of enlightenment or would Kant want us to focus on the process of becoming more enlightened?
>